2013 QCCA 979, 2013 QCCA 979

Liu c. McGill University Non-Academic Certified Association 2013 QCCA 979 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-09-023380-132 (500-17-074065-122) DATE: May 31, 2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. MARIE ST-PIERRE, J.A. DOMINIQUE BÉLANGER, J.A. JISHENG LIU APPELLANT – Plaintiff v. McGILL UNIVERSITY NON-ACADEMIC CERTIFIED ASSOCIATION RESPONDENT – Defendant JUDGMENT [ 1 ] On October 9, 2012, the appellant (Mr.

Liu) filed a motion for declaratory judgment in the Superior Court, in relation with a written agreement between the respondent (“MUNACA”) and himself pertaining to a grievance against his dismissal, which grievance had been referred to arbitration. [ 2 ] Under this agreement, which was concluded on June 2, 2010, MUNACA accepted to retain the services of a lawyer of Mr. Liu's choice in order defend the grievance, upon the condition that Mr. Liu would pay for part of his lawyer's fees ( i.e. the difference between the fees charged by the lawyer ordinarily retained by MUNACA and the lawyer chosen by Mr.

Liu). [ 3 ] Following certain events which will not be recounted here, but which are detailed in the two decisions referred to in the following paragraphs, Mr. Liu, on January 19, 2011, filed a complaint with the Commission des relations du travail (“CRT”).

He alleged therein that MUNACA infringed s. 47.2 of the Labour Code by refusing to give effect to the above-mentioned agreement and by arbitrarily revoking it after the first day of hearing before the grievance arbitrator. [ 4 ] On May 30, 2012, the CRT dismissed the complaint, stating, among other things, that the June 2, 2010 agreement had become moot because Mr. Liu could not fulfill his part of the deal ( i.e. paying part of his lawyer's fees) and refused to comply therewith.

According to the CRT: [74] Il est inexact de prétendre que le mandat de M e Garneau aux fins de l'arbitrage du grief provenait de monsieur Liu. Il était mandaté par l'Association. L'Association envoie une copie de la lettre du 2 juin 2010 à M e Garneau. Il faut nécessairement y comprendre qu'ainsi elle l'accepte pour la représenter et qu'elle lui versera une

partie des coûts. Le président et le vice-président relations du travail de l'Association sont présents à l'audience d'arbitrage du 17 juin suivant, date à laquelle ils discutent aussi avec M e Garneau et monsieur Liu du cas et de stratégies. Lors d'une autre rencontre, M e Garneau lui-même informe monsieur Liu qu'il ne peut pas à la fois agir dans ses plaintes contre l'Association et dans son dossier d'arbitrage de grief pour l'Association. Celle-ci paie la facture que M e Garneau lui fait parvenir. Ce dernier affirme avoir obtenu un mandat des officiers de l'Association.

Le président de l'Association communique avec M e Garneau au sujet de la fin du mandat. [75] Dans les faits, l'entente du début juin 2010 ne trouve plus application vers le milieu du mois de juillet 2010 parce que monsieur Liu ne pouvait plus payer sa part des coûts pour les services de M e Garneau. Par la suite, il n'a jamais informé l'Association qu'il pouvait recommencer à verser une

partie des coûts, le cas échéant. En outre, il n'a jamais présenté à l'Association un autre avocat de son choix en vue de l'audience d'arbitrage prévue à l'automne 2010. Il a seulement refusé le choix d'avocat de l'Association et invoqué sa volonté de se représenter lui-même. Avec raison, l'Association a catégoriquement refusé cette demande de monsieur Liu.

Elle est déraisonnable et contraire au régime de représentation syndicale et à l'obligation d'égalité de traitement des associations accréditées. [ 5 ] As to the rest, the CRT concluded that MUNACA did not infringe s. 47.2 of the Labour Code and that, on the contrary, it “ démontre une croyance en la justesse de sa cause [that of Mr. Liu] et une volonté certaine de le défendre de façon diligente en accommodant ses craintes et ses souhaits ” (paragr. 86 of the decision). [ 6 ] Mr. Liu did not seek the administrative review or revocation of this decision, pursuant to s. 127 of the Labour Code , nor did he

seek judicial review. The May 30, 2012 decision of the CRT thus became final. [7] A few months later, however, Mr. Liu introduced his motion for declaratory judgment, seeking the following conclusions : 1. GRANT this Motion; 2. DECLARE the agreement of June 2, 2010 between Applicant and MUNACA is valid; 3. DECLARE MUNACA has infringed the agreement of June 2, 2010; 4. DECLARE Applicant has the right to represent himself or be represented by a lawyer of his choice for the arbitration; 5.

ORDER MUNACA to respect the agreement and provide all the necessary assistance and help to Applicant for arbitration; [8] On February 18, 2013, the Superior Court, district of Montreal (the Honourable Mr. Justice Stéphane Sansfaçon), grantedMUNACA's exception to dismiss and dismissed Mr. Liu's motion for declaratory judgment on the grounds that 1° the dispute betweenthe parties falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CRT, and 2° that the CRT already ruled upon the very questions raised by theaction, which means that, pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata (art. 2848 C.C.Q.), Mr.

Liu is now precluded from raising them anew. [9] On March 14, 2013, Mr. Liu filed an inscription in appeal against the judgment of the Superior Court. [10] On April 3, 2013, MUNACA filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, pursuant to art. 501, sub-para. (4.1) and (5) c.c.p. Thismotion must be allowed, since the appeal is indeed futile and has no chance of success. [11] The examination of the decision of the CRT and Mr. Liu's “motion to institute proceedings for declaratory judgment”indisputably shows that all the issues raised in the latter have already been dealt with and settled by the former.

The cause, object andpurpose of the debate are the same, the parties are the same and are acting in the same capacity, and there is nothing left for the SuperiorCourt to decide that has not already been decided by the CRT. [12] In the present case,

article 2848 C.C.Q. and the doctrine of res judicata prevent Mr.

Liu of attempting to retry the issues decidedby the CRT, either by way of another complaint addressed to the same tribunal or by way of a recourse instituted before another tribunalor before a court. [13] It is also important to remember that res judicata covers both what was raised, and what should or could have been raised at thefirst trial (in the present case before the CRT).[1] It is also important to remember that, in the words of the Supreme Court of Canada,“[a] necessary consequence of the irrebuttable presumption of the validity of judgments is that the authority of res judicata exists evenwhen there is an error in the judgment” (Roberge v.

Bolduc, (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 374, p. 403). This comment alsoapplies to decisions of the CRT rendered within its jurisdiction. [14] Considering Mr. Liu's personal situation, no costs shall be awarded. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [15] GRANTS the motion to dismiss the appeal, without costs; [16] DISMISSES the appeal, without costs. MARIE-FRANCE BICH, J.A. MARIE ST-PIERRE, J.A. DOMINIQUE BÉLANGER, J.A. Mr. Jisheng LiuAppellant (absent) Mtre Sibel AtaogulMELANÇON MARCEAU GRENIER & SCIORTINOFor the respondent Date of hearing: May 27, 2013